Guerra

T H I N K A G A I N
By Lawrence Freedman

WAR
Which is more representative of modern war: The United States unleashing high-tech arsenals to defeat dubious Third World regimes swiftly or machete-wielding insurgents fighting brutal civil wars in Africa? The short answer: both. Yet neither of these scenarios conforms to the classic model of warfare as a titanic struggle between rival greatpowers. It’s time to update the textbooks and reappraise the nature of war.

“War Is the Continuation of Politics by Other Means”
Yes. After more than 170 years, the thesis of Prussian military theorist Karl von Clausewitz still applies. War is violence with a purpose. What has changed is whose purposes are being served and their nature. Clausewitz was most interested in great powers struggling fordominance, drawing upon the whole resources of their states, and throwing vast armies against each other. Today, with the United States as the dominant superpower, the also-rans in the international hierarchy know there is little point in trying to gain ascendancy through arms races and alliance formation. And in a postcolonial world characterized by economic interdeLawrence Freedman is professorof war studies at the University of London’s King’s College and a member of the Foreign Policy editorial board.

pendence, there are fewer reasons to pursue the old mercantilist agenda of conquering and occupying productive territory, protecting trade routes, and gaining influence by planting the national flag on foreign shores. Traditional power struggles still prevail in some regions of theworld, such as Africa, where rival factions vie for dominance, countries remain marginalized from the global economy, and violence is endemic. By and large, these regions produce civil wars—the most common type of modern warfare. Although there is no novelty in conflicts caused by groups seeking secession or insurrection, global communications have internationalized civil wars by drawing attentionto humanitarian distress. As such, when major states intervene abroad, they normally claim to do so in the name of universal values rather than selfish national interests.

16

Foreign Policy

“Wars Are Never Formally Declared Anymore”
Right. Back in the days when interstate conflicts
were the norm, governments used formal declarations to endow themselves with extraordinary wartimepowers, such as rooting out “enemy aliens” residing on their soil, controlling economic activity, or suppressing domestic dissent. Formal declarations also provided a basis for regulating and containing war: Combatants acquired a distinct legal status, as did noncombatants, who were classified as neutrals. However, since the Second World War, governments have avoided formal declarations. Citizens nowview extra wartime powers as superfluous and alarming. And neutral countries would be reluctant to undertake any actions—not least those potentially helpful to the government declaring war— that might compromise their impartiality. What’s more, adequate legal basis for war can normally be found in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which acknowledges the “inherent right of individualor collective self-defense.” Even preemptive wars can be justified as self-defense, if a state can show that an attack is imminent. The main consequence of the contemporary reluctance to declare war has been a search for euphemisms, such as “enforcement actions” and “use of force,” on the grounds that as soon as a conflict is officially called a war, then all the most inconvenient legalconsequences kick in. Just ask the unfortunate inmates of Camp X-Ray on the U.S. Naval Base Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, some of whom the United States has denied formal legal protections under the Geneva Convention by labeling them “unlawful combatants.”

“Democracies Do Not Go To War With Each Other”
The dichotomy between bellicose authoritarian states and peace-loving democratic states (until roused by the...